... I have heard so many Muslims saying this, many of them are what we would define as moderate Muslims.

Well of course that is a crazy defense from their side that all the west is bad and the real Muslims should create a one ummah, and if they pose with the IS flag it is actually not the IS flag but the flag that has always stood for Islam because of course they are "against" IS.

Tired of hearing of all the propaganda they get from Muslim newcenters and a few also said that the help asylum seekers get from the red cross is not really good, because the red cross and the US and Eu steals the money from arab countries.

I must say i am annoyed everytime hearing this and the Muslims immigrants makes it tough not only for themselves but also for all us immigrants that are also non muslim with bringing sll their islamic perversions. I hope the west will survive this.

Any good arguments against this with sources?

I also dont know why another one of their arguments for that IS is created by the US is that why should muslims do terror on muslims so that is why it has to be America and Israel, when truth is muslims has been killing eachother all the time. Sometimes i wonder how the Maghrebi and middleeastern countries would look today without Islam...

Like all conspiracy theories, people proposing them pretend YOU have to prove they are not telling the truth. In reality they need to provide the proof as they are making the claim. The burden of proof is always on those making the claim.

Who actually has to prove anything about the theft of the wallet, you or your neighbour?

As to the rest, well...

The way I see it is that the intervention in Iraq and the attempt to remove Assad in Syria were ill-advised and poorly thought out. American specially help the naive belief that if only Saddam is gone, the Iraqis will eagerly embrace "democracy" western style, and all is happy tea and muffins ever after.

The Muslim world lives largely in countries with borders not reflecting properly their own ethnic allegiance, in border created by Western powers in a post colonial world. Very few Muslim countries have a stable government, and if one leader goes, there is always a violent struggle to replace him. Exceptions are the oil rich gulf states, who, govern themselves along the old tribal lines.

The the point to remember, if you walk into the middle East and remove a leader, you better be prepared to run the place yourself. In reality this is of course neither politically acceptable nor realistic.

If you don't, you are most likely get a new, much worse leader. ISIS is born out of the opportunity the relative chaos and power vacuum in Iraq and Syria provided. To that limited extent you could argue the West "created" it. However, some other collapse of a regime could have resulted in much the same thing. And of course it takes much more than simply such a vacuum of power to make ISIS. It takes an existing ideology onto which ISIS can build and through it can recruit fighters and attract funds. That ideology is Islam. So if you want to find people to blame for ISIS, start with Mohammed. There are very few things you can say ISIS do that Mohammed did not. Mohammed used Islam to unite people under his power. ISIS is doing the same.

According to a survey by Aljezeera, some 70% of Muslims in the Middle East support ISIS. This astonishing result can only be explained by the effect of Islamic ideology and teaching. In the Muslim world freedom and democracy are not valued as much as here. Many Muslim genuinely want the "good old days" with a Caliph in charge and shariah in place, and they see ISIS as the heroes delivering to them the past glory of Islam.

So did the US or Israel conspire together and somehow create ISIS? No, that really is quite ridiculous. But the US created the conditions in which it could grow, unaware perhaps, or too proud to pay attention to advice they received from diverse sources such as Israel and Iran, as well as Saudi Arabia.

Should we have known better? Probably. It is always easy to say that afterwards though.

Churchill had this to say about the US: "they always do the right thing, when they have tried everything else."

ISIS is -absolutely- representative of islam, even though it isn't representative of muslims, which must be a hell of a thing to come to terms with as a muslim. They both believe in the goodness and truth of the same terrible shit.....one group, apparently, is simply more compelled to act on it than the other.

gupsfu wrote:When someone uses the "taken out of context" argument without explaining what it's really supposed to mean, you know he's lying.

Muslims are so secure in their faith that they need to kill those who don’t share it.

Jomo Kenyatta, President of Kenya “When the Missionaries arrived, the Africans had the land and the Missionaries had the Bible. They taught how to pray with our eyes closed.When we opened them, they had the land and we had the Bible.”

The problem with Putin's comments is often he says things which are factual and true, but puts them together in ways to provoke conclusions in people which if necessary he can later deny.

He is like a guy showing you pictures and goes "what do you think?" "Here is a guy from Sicily" "Look, a victim of a Mafia killing". "What do you think?" "Look, a Thai lady" "This is a brothel in Bangkok". "What do you think?" "Here you see an eighteen your old boy from London." "And this old lady was mugged and beaten up" "What do you think..."

Some examples: That US has armed some groups in Syria. Some of them fight ISIS, others Assad. Sometimes groups change sides. The intended conclusion listeners are expected to draw.... the US arms ISIS. He never said it out right, but he suggested it, by carefully arranging things to give that impression

here is another one like that:

ISIS sell oil. "Someone" buys the oil. The US "knows". Again, he creates a scenario which is used accuse the US: Turkey, with the knowledge and support of the US and NATO, finances ISIS. Not said, but said implied.

So with Putin's speeches the things he does not say are sometimes more important than the things he does say.

He really should be given credit for being a rather clever manipulator. He can instil ideas into people's heads without even spelling them out. If fact, if he were to spell them out, the magic would evaporate and people would analyse what they hear. This way, though, he gets away with planting suspicions in people's heads without having to provide the evidence.

manfred wrote:He really should be given credit for being a rather clever manipulator. He can instil ideas into people's heads without even spelling them out. If fact, if he were to spell them out, the magic would evaporate and people would analyse what they hear. This way, though, he gets away with planting suspicions in people's heads without having to provide the evidence.

Well trained by the KGB.

"If a woman passes one kilometer from someone who is praying, is the prayer canceled then? What is the maximum distance from which a prayer is cancelled altogether?" Majid Oukacha